[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52E155A8.7000206@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:47:20 -0500
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/4] qrwlock: A queue read/write lock implementation
On 01/23/2014 12:15 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Waiman Long<waiman.long@...com> wrote:
>> I thought that all atomic RMW instructions are memory barrier.
> On x86 they are. Not necessarily elsewhere.
>
>> If they are not, what kind of barrier should be added?
> smp_mb__before_atomic_xyz() and smp_mb__after_atomic_xyz() will do it,
> and are no-op (well, barriers - I don't think it matters) on x86.
>
> Linus
> -
Thank for the info. I am less familiar with that kind of issues on other
architecture. I will add a smp_mb__after_atomic_dec() & send out a new
patch.
-Longman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists